[GOAL] Re: Interview with Harvard's Stuart Shieber

[Hans Pfeiffenberger]

@Peter,

Am 14.12.12 15:44, schrieb Peter Murray-Rust:
> For a start I'm talking about things like clear licences, clear 
> undertakings to authors, readers and funders. At present publishers 
> can create whatever they like - it's often self contradictory and 
> inpoerable. There is huge amounts of fuzz and fudge about what "Open 
> Access" means operationally.
I understand that licenses and prices are what *you* care about.

And *I* was responding to the thread's sub-theme of "predatory 
publishers". To my knowledge, this term is normally used for 
entrepreneurs who pretend to run a publishing business but actually 
have just fake editorial boards and review processes. Perhaps there 
are also "lesser crimes" against scholarly publishing worth to be 
named predatory behaviour.

@Richard
> But should the research community give
> up because the task seems difficult?
not at all. I am just extremely sceptical of an approach by committee! 
On the other hand, a solution by crowdsourcing (or individual efforts) 
of any kind might be deemed working by "us", but would probably not 
fit in any kind of regulated decision making process about funding of 
APCs (where those are needed).


Hans